Just try to understand the Dhamma (i.e. the Four Noble Truths) and develop the path of insight.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

A sect has split off and deviated from the true Dhamma. There were no sects when the Buddha started teaching. Most of the monks followed the teaching diligently and gained personal realisation of the Dhamma for themselves. There was no danger for them to fall into wrong views again.

Devadatta created the first schism in the Sangha — the first sect. A hundred years after the Buddha's passing away, other monks started accepting money, and doing other things contrary to the Buddha's teaching. The Second Buddhist Council was held to re-affirm what was the true Dhamma and true Vinaya.

Nowadays, there are many more sects that follow their own ideas, not the Buddha's teaching. To learn how to discriminate between Dhamma and non-Dhamma, one should study the Dhamma/Vinaya carefully and practice in accordance with the teaching to the best of one's ability.

Don't pay any attention to what others do, one should follow the Sallekha Dhamma and try to develop the Noble Eightfold Path. If you keep to the path, you won't get side-tracked in the forest of views.

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Nowadays, there are many more sects that follow their own ideas, not the Buddha's teaching. To learn how to discriminate between Dhamma and non-Dhamma, one should study the Dhamma/Vinaya carefully and practice in accordance with the teaching to the best of one's ability.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Nowadays, there are many more sects that follow their own ideas, not the Buddha's teaching. To learn how to discriminate between Dhamma and non-Dhamma, one should study the Dhamma/Vinaya carefully and practice in accordance with the teaching to the best of one's ability.

Metta,Retro.

Agreed!

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

A sect has split off and deviated from the true Dhamma. There were no sects when the Buddha started teaching. Most of the monks followed the teaching diligently and gained personal realisation of the Dhamma for themselves. There was no danger for them to fall into wrong views again.

Devadatta created the first schism in the Sangha — the first sect. A hundred years after the Buddha's passing away, other monks started accepting money, and doing other things contrary to the Buddha's teaching. The Second Buddhist Council was held to re-affirm what was the true Dhamma and true Vinaya.

Nowadays, there are many more sects that follow their own ideas, not the Buddha's teaching. To learn how to discriminate between Dhamma and non-Dhamma, one should study the Dhamma/Vinaya carefully and practice in accordance with the teaching to the best of one's ability.

Don't pay any attention to what others do, one should follow the Sallekha Dhamma and try to develop the Noble Eightfold Path. If you keep to the path, you won't get side-tracked in the forest of views.

1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.2. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.3. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.

What the above definition doesnt mention is that each one thinks it has an exclusive chokehold on truth and authenticity.

"When you meditate, don't send your mind outside. Don't fasten onto any knowledge at all. Whatever knowledge you've gained from books or teachers, don't bring it in to complicate things. Cut away all preoccupations, and then as you meditate let all your knowledge come from what's going on in the mind. When the mind is quiet, you'll know it for yourself. But you have to keep meditating a lot. When the time comes for things to develop, they'll develop on their own. Whatever you know, have it come from your own mind.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... eleft.html

And here I was, tinking that Venerable Pesala was making Ajhan Brahm's joke about sects. It turns out that it was a teaching.

Where is your recently found humour vein, Bhante?

No disrespect meant.

He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' (Jhana Sutta - Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation)

FTR, according to the Mahāyāna Adhyāśayasaṃcodana Sūtra as quoted by Śāntideva in his Compendium of Training (Śikṣāsamuccaya), four principles indicate that an utterance (or statement, teaching, etc.) is compatible with the speech of the Buddha:

(i) it is connected with truth, not with what is untrue;(ii) it is connected with dharma, not with what is not dharma;(iii) it leads to giving up defilement, not to increasing defilement;(iv) it points out the praiseworthy qualities of nirvāṇa, not those of saṃsāra.

Ñāṇa wrote:FTR, according to the Mahāyāna Adhyāśayasaṃcodana Sūtra as quoted by Śāntideva in his Compendium of Training (Śikṣāsamuccaya), four principles indicate that an utterance (or statement, teaching, etc.) is compatible with the speech of the Buddha:

(i) it is connected with truth, not with what is untrue;(ii) it is connected with dharma, not with what is not dharma;(iii) it leads to giving up defilement, not to increasing defilement;(iv) it points out the praiseworthy qualities of nirvāṇa, not those of saṃsāra.

Well, the Buddha said that one will make jewel dhamma disappear sooner and get bad kammas when say something the Buddha didn't told as he told, say something he told as he didn't told:Like the most of mahayana suttas weren't told by the Buddha but said were told by him (this action will make dhamma disappear sooner)Like said that arahant is inferior to Bodhivastta when comes to freedom (the Buddha didn't taught that but said that taught that, also this action will make dhamma disappear sooner).Praiseworthy qualities of Nirvana but attack an arahant to attain that for himself (this too, will make dhamma disapper sooner)

Most of mahayana suttas are like that, they contradict themselves. If they want to tell something, why fakes it as the Buddhas words? Why don't be themselves like many other monks? The Nikayas weren't all said by the Buddha but people have no problem with that, why mahayanists needed to lie? Is lying connected with truth? Is lying connected with dharma?

Compatibility is one thing, lying about dhamma is a whole different thing.

Ñāṇa wrote:FTR, according to the Mahāyāna Adhyāśayasaṃcodana Sūtra as quoted by Śāntideva in his Compendium of Training (Śikṣāsamuccaya), four principles indicate that an utterance (or statement, teaching, etc.) is compatible with the speech of the Buddha:

(i) it is connected with truth, not with what is untrue;(ii) it is connected with dharma, not with what is not dharma;(iii) it leads to giving up defilement, not to increasing defilement;(iv) it points out the praiseworthy qualities of nirvāṇa, not those of saṃsāra.

Well, the Buddha said that one will make jewel dhamma disappear sooner and get bad kammas when say something the Buddha didn't told as he told, say something he told as he didn't told:Like the most of mahayana suttas weren't told by the Buddha but said were told by him (this action will make dhamma disappear sooner)Like said that arahant is inferior to Bodhivastta when comes to freedom (the Buddha didn't taught that but said that taught that, also this action will make dhamma disappear sooner).Praiseworthy qualities of Nirvana but attack an arahant to attain that for himself (this too, will make dhamma disapper sooner)

Most of mahayana suttas are like that, they contradict themselves. If they want to tell something, why fakes it as the Buddhas words? Why don't be themselves like many other monks? The Nikayas weren't all said by the Buddha but people have no problem with that, why mahayanists needed to lie? Is lying connected with truth? Is lying connected with dharma?

Compatibility is one thing, lying about dhamma is a whole different thing.

Regards.

Dear whynotme

First we do not know for certain whether or not all some or none of the Mahayana sutras were taught by the Buddha in the literal sense or in some other sense we may not be ready to understand.

Second, since teachings were often passed orally before being written down, the origin of the teachings could have been very obscure even 2 thousand years ago. Were they taught by a great arahat? Were they taught by the Buddha himself? Were they received as revelations?

In any case this kind of simplistic notion that they were forgeries, as if the author tried to fake the Buddha's signature on them and pass them off as the original teachings is very far from the truth. I know people try to use them to discredit Mahayana as opposed to authentic and true Theravada, but the reality is very different. Theravada itself contains many teachings ascribed to the Buddha that modern scholarship puts in grave doubt. So what of it? People search for the authentic Buddhavacana, expending a great deal of effort.

To me, it seems kind of absurd. If the Buddha's teachings work, then people do attain liberation. Why not be open to other teachers who had the chance to absorb and develop some of the teachings? I mean Euclid was the father of Geometry, but we don't only study Euclid, do we?

Anyway, all this has been said before and by greater people than anyone here, so no one will be convinced. Ajahn Amaro studied Mahayana, Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Dune Athulo quoted Mahayana masters, Bhikkhu Bodhi studies and lives with Mahayana monks. And? People will still imply that it is Adhamma, corrupted, perverse, etc, just like our Ven Pesala did in his more outspoken times.

Well, what can I say? To each their own. Not everybody has to love Mahayana, but refraining from passing judgment of what one does not understand, refraining from generating unwholesome thoughts and speech towards fellow Buddhists, is probably a good idea for everyone.

Dan74 wrote:People will still imply that it is Adhamma, corrupted, perverse, etc, just like our Ven Pesala did in his more outspoken times.

I haven't changed my views. I don't want to start sect-bashing by mentioning any particular teachings here, but pointing out what is Adhamma as Adhamma is not unwholesome kamma. Whatever its source, Adhamma is still Adhamma, so its nothing to do with Mahāyāna vs Theravāða. Anyone could quote the genuine words of the Buddha, but twist their meaning to something else, e.g. saying that the Buddha approved of killing because of what he said in the Kesi Sutta.

This teaching is from the Anguttaranikāya:

Not Dhamma

140. Those monks who explain what is not Dhamma as not Dhamma, work for the welfare, happiness, and benefit of gods and men. They make much merit and preserve the true Dhamma.

141. Those monks who explain what is Dhamma as Dhamma, work for the welfare, happiness, and benefit of gods and men. They make much merit and preserve the true Dhamma.

Of course we can't certain 100% about everything, you can doubt everything, it is critical thinking, it is everyone's right. But in the end if you do it rightly, smarty, wisely and carefully, you still have one conclusion no matter where you start.

I.e you can doubt there isn't Buddha, there isn't truth, death is the end, then we are all doomed the same, no matter Buddhist or not, but by choosing Buddhist faith, you lose nothing while choose not, you gain nothing. The same result for everyone..And if there is Buddha, there is truth, the is the way, then choosing Buddhism, one gets this life, gets next lives while ones who choose not lose it all.

It is like gamble to a normal person because we don't know, we don't see the invisible world, we don't see previous or next lives, we can't judge based on ourselves. But after comparison other chances with its possibility, in the end the only smart way is choosing to believe there is the Buddha and there is dhamma coz by betting on it, you will it all if it is true while lose nothing if it is false. It is a very scientific calculation, of a smart gambler.

Guess where I learnt this type of gambling: the Nikaya. No way, no word, no magical power, no superpower can change this fact. It is the best way one can gamble his own life.

Now after the first step, you must do more homework. We believe there is Buddha, there is dhamma but we don't know where it is or what is true. There are just several options: Mahayana and Therevada (to be simple). Noway both or all because they contradict each other.

If all Mahayana and Therevada are the same, are not the Buddha's teaching, not the dhamma. So there is truth out there but we can't reach it then we again all doomed the same no matter what we do, then choose whatever you like. Well, there is a great news because no need to get trying with your choosing because it leads to nowhere.

Now if Therevada or Mahayana contains the truth, choose one for yourself. I don't want to go in detail about this part coz I told it earlier. The choosing was done very carefully in a very scientific manner, not by feeling, love or hate or just random. This is faith with wisdom, faith with brain, faith while see, hear, learn, not a blind faith.

Where did I learn this kind of calculation, again it is Nikaya, none of this in Mahayana or maybe I haven't meet that mahayana sutta coz I read Nikaya much more. But I have a very open mind, even critics about Buddhism, about Therevada, about Mahayana, I see them all as fair as possible. If mahayanists or non Buddists teach me something useful, I will learn all, and I learnt alot from mahayanists. In the future if there is evidence otherwise, I can review it with open eye, but every review must be done carefully, clearly, fairly with reason. As the current state, no way I see mahayana suttas as the true dhamma.

And lastly, I don't think point out other wrong view as bad action. Hell, if I have wrong views (of course I still have) I wish everyone point out for me even using harsh way, it hurts at first but will be better with time, that is the attitude of true friends, not hiding each others faults.

etc., and of course there is also the Kesamutti Sutta, which is often misquoted and/or misinterpreted.

Whatever you decide, your future happiness depends on it, so take due care, and keep examining your view to see if it is complete. Right view (sammāditthi), doesn't mean only right view as opposed to wrong view (micchā ditthi), it means perfect view — just as Sammāsambuddha means the Perfectly Enlightened Buddha.

You make too many unwarranted assumptions in your long post for me to list, but thank you for taking care to write it.

To you the way you go about it must seem scientific, objective and correct, but to me it is full of logical holes and biases. Indeed, some great contemporary Theravada teachers, like Joseph Goldstein, to name one, think that practicing both Theravada and Mahayana works very well, and have discovered that they do not contradict each other, as far as their practice is concerned. How is this possible? Are they deluded or are you?

whynotme wrote:Dear Dan,

Of course we can't certain 100% about everything, you can doubt everything, it is critical thinking, it is everyone's right. But in the end if you do it rightly, smarty, wisely and carefully, you still have one conclusion no matter where you start.

I.e you can doubt there isn't Buddha, there isn't truth, death is the end, then we are all doomed the same, no matter Buddhist or not, but by choosing Buddhist faith, you lose nothing while choose not, you gain nothing. The same result for everyone..And if there is Buddha, there is truth, the is the way, then choosing Buddhism, one gets this life, gets next lives while ones who choose not lose it all.

It is like gamble to a normal person because we don't know, we don't see the invisible world, we don't see previous or next lives, we can't judge based on ourselves. But after comparison other chances with its possibility, in the end the only smart way is choosing to believe there is the Buddha and there is dhamma coz by betting on it, you will it all if it is true while lose nothing if it is false. It is a very scientific calculation, of a smart gambler.

Guess where I learnt this type of gambling: the Nikaya. No way, no word, no magical power, no superpower can change this fact. It is the best way one can gamble his own life.

Now after the first step, you must do more homework. We believe there is Buddha, there is dhamma but we don't know where it is or what is true. There are just several options: Mahayana and Therevada (to be simple). Noway both or all because they contradict each other.

If all Mahayana and Therevada are the same, are not the Buddha's teaching, not the dhamma. So there is truth out there but we can't reach it then we again all doomed the same no matter what we do, then choose whatever you like. Well, there is a great news because no need to get trying with your choosing because it leads to nowhere.

Now if Therevada or Mahayana contains the truth, choose one for yourself. I don't want to go in detail about this part coz I told it earlier. The choosing was done very carefully in a very scientific manner, not by feeling, love or hate or just random. This is faith with wisdom, faith with brain, faith while see, hear, learn, not a blind faith.

Where did I learn this kind of calculation, again it is Nikaya, none of this in Mahayana or maybe I haven't meet that mahayana sutta coz I read Nikaya much more. But I have a very open mind, even critics about Buddhism, about Therevada, about Mahayana, I see them all as fair as possible. If mahayanists or non Buddists teach me something useful, I will learn all, and I learnt alot from mahayanists. In the future if there is evidence otherwise, I can review it with open eye, but every review must be done carefully, clearly, fairly with reason. As the current state, no way I see mahayana suttas as the true dhamma.

And lastly, I don't think point out other wrong view as bad action. Hell, if I have wrong views (of course I still have) I wish everyone point out for me even using harsh way, it hurts at first but will be better with time, that is the attitude of true friends, not hiding each others faults.

whynotme wrote:What do you think about Mahayana? Do you consider it part of Buddism?

It is an very idealistic version of buddhism. But in that aspect it is not very different from Theravada. Theravada is slightly less idealistic. "Idealistic" here means follow an idea of an ideal, wanting to become identical with one's ideation of an ideal.